by Rob Natelson
In Washington, D.C. a group presents the Secretary of Education with a 120,000-signature petition asking the federal government to fund an effort to require every public school student in the country to take courses the group favors.
In Montana, activists flood the newspapers with letters urging that Congress force all Americans into a single government-run health care system.
In California, state officials lobby the U.S. Treasury to force the rest of us to guarantee short-term California debt so the state can balance its budget without correcting decades of overspending.
None of these demands would make sense even in the best of times. Public education is most effective when funding and other decisions are local. Giving more power to the same government that created the health care mess will raise costs further, and costs will drop only when government largely withdraws from the health care marketplace. Handing a state “free money” will not induce that state to get its fiscal house in order.
But these are not the best of times. Taxpayers are already struggling with a serious recession. The federal budget is trillions in deficit. When you see people promoting such ideas now, you have to wonder at the depths of human stupidity and greed.
As a professor of constitutional law, I also wonder at the depths of human ignorance. Do these people know anything about how our Constitution is supposed to work? Did they ever learn about federalism and the Constitution’s limits on government power? Do they know what freedom is?
Many of the people who now want to give the federal government life-and-death health-care power over 300 million Americans were hugely upset at how that same government treated a handful of foreign combatants at Guantanamo. Do they ever make the connection?
Welcome to twenty-first century America – where federal politics is largely centered on a single question: How much can the stupid and greedy plunder from their hardworking, productive neighbors?
History does not repeat itself, but history often sings variations on the same tune. Consider one historical variation: The American Revolution.
Some history books say that the Revolution occurred when the “Americans” rebelled against the “British” because the “British” insisted on plundering the “Americans.” But that’s not exactly what happened.
Before the Declaration of Independence, Americans and British were subjects of the same Crown. They were all fellow-citizens.
King George III and the politicians in control of the British ministry wanted to increase the number of people getting benefits from government. Their idea was to create new classes of dependents that would be properly grateful to them.
But because the British government was deeply in debt, there wasn’t much money available. So the politicians hit upon the idea of taxing American businesses and consumers to raise the revenue they needed to swell the government payroll.
The resulting struggle was not purely between America and Britain. Some Americans were on the royal payroll, or hoped to be, or were dependent on others who were. These “Tories” firmly supported the London politicians, and some of them fought and killed their fellow Americans.
But among the British people there were many who sympathized with the colonists. Merchants trading with America knew they would bear much of the new tax burden, so they sympathized with the revolutionists.
Many perceptive Englishmen understood that a government that could freely loot productive people to support political dependents was a real threat to freedom. Together, pro-American Brits employed political pressure to help our side win.
In other words, the “American Revolution” was largely a civil war – a war among fellow-citizens. That is why most of the American Founders declared Independence with such regret. The Declaration of Independence speaks sorrowfully of “our British brethren.”
Some leading Founders, such as John Dickinson and Robert Morris, actually opposed Independence because it broke their hearts to go to war against fellow citizens (although after the decision was made, both Dickinson and Morris rendered great service to the American cause).
Those of us who are outraged at how the federal government treats hardworking, productive people are right to be outraged. We are right to want to rein in the politicians and bureaucrats.
But politicians and bureaucrats are not the whole problem. To a considerable degree, they are responding to the demands of the folks who insist that our debt-laden government spend billions more, or that the federal government assume command of our health care and our local schools.
People who make such demands may mean well. King George and at least some of his ministers meant well, too – but the effect of their policies was a war against millions of their most productive fellow-citizens, and eventually, the loss of those citizens from the British Empire.
Whatever the motivations of those who seek to use the federal government against the rest of us, they too have launched an unbridled and unprincipled political war against their fellow citizens.
From the perspective of history, in other words: They are the new King George.
Rob Natelson is Professor of Law at The University of Montana, and a leading constitutional scholar. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.
June 29th, 2009 at 6:21 am
We the people face a grave crisis, a Constitutional crisis. After decades of avoiding the Constitution’s explicit prohibitions and duties; and after turning a death ear to the peoples repeated petitions to honor the law, our servant government has brought our grand Republic to the edge of ruin. How we the people respond to these escalating abuses over the coming months may determine whether or not our children may ever enjoy the life of liberty. To be blunt, our government is out of control. It has abused its limited powers, trodden upon the rights of the people, giving no sign of stopping. It has engaged our nation in Middle East quagmire with out Congressional deliberations, or brought about an economic disaster by a privately owned central bank with a debt based fiat currency; deprived the people of their privacy brought forth an emerging police state via the USA Patriot act. Unconstitutional apportioned direct taxes on Americans. Inaugurated a President without requiring him to produce evidence to establish him as a natural born citizen; as required by the constitution. Deprive the people the right to form a militia and to keep and bear arms; plus much much more: the unconstitutional North American Union; the unlawful Treasury bailout; uncontrolled borders and illegal emigration; Election voting fraud. And the most grievous injury, a servant government’s refusal, at every turn, to be held accountable in every way by failing to respond to the people with repeated petitions for the redress of grievances.
Later this year, represented delegates, people of each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia will converge as a national Continental Congress to debate our constitutional crisis, and establish practical strategies the people can take and map that peacefully establishes liberty and restore Constitutional order. These historical proceedings will be known as Continental Congress 2009. Taking a page from our founders, the delegates will assemble for a period of several weeks to begin the virtuous tasks of organizing the people to resist tyranny and once again imposing the yoke of law upon our servant federal government.
Among the potential strategies to be considered by the Congress will be the profound but little known natural right of the people to withhold their money to peacefully hold their servant government accountable to the law. If money is wonted by rulers who have in any manor oppressed the people they may retain it until their grievances are redressed and they peacefully secured relief without trusting defied petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.
A series of promotional meeting are currently being conducted across the country to advance public interest in this Continental Congress 2009 initiative and to expose potential delegates and supporters to this just cause in defense of liberty; we urge all Americans to learn more about the ongoing battle to restore Constitutional Order and secure the rights of the people through our Constitution and Declaration of Independence our founders bequeath to us. Not only the insight regarding the rights of man and inalienable liberty but the natural order of government necessary to enjoy and sustain them. Above all the founders edged a blue print a form of government that would be barred for ever trampling upon those divine gifts. Its time to join together; educate the nation, and take up the tools the founders gave us to peacefully secure liberty. The government has chosen to ignore the peoples repeated petitions for redress of grievances. For more information about the historic Continental Congress 2009 initiative, please visit us at http://WWW.GiveMeLiberty.Org
June 29th, 2009 at 7:33 am
only when people realize that using force and violence - government - is an immoral and unjust way to achieve their goals, will we find peace and prosperity in this country.
June 29th, 2009 at 7:39 am
I totally agree with the Prof. People have forgotten what freedom is and it may because they have never known the freedoms our founders invisioned for us. The Constitution has been under attack since 1860. Very loud pockets of self interest groups have allowed our Federal Govt. to install laws that punish hard working freedom loving Americans all for our own good of course. Party politics has taken the place of freedom and our rights under the Constitution. The first ten amendments of the Constitution are our rights and not privledges like driving a car. When I go to a political blog its all about left and right, Repubs and Dems. Its about labels and if you dare to mention the Constititon your label is right wing extemist. I hope our military is paying attention to what is happening in Honduras and take their oath to uphold the Constitution more seriously than our politicans.
June 29th, 2009 at 8:20 am
BK Campbell,
Good points. If you’re a lawyer, it’s OK to talk about the Constitution because the hyper critical left can’t argue with authority (and that’s their weakness).
The military does get it, and the Oath Keepers are composed of current and former military and law enforcement personnel. They DO get it.
Politicians are expendable. Patriots are not expendable.
“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” Samuel Adams, 1776
June 29th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Notice the reoccuring langage and theme of “revolution” that keeps cropping up. I am seeing this more and more all the time, here, there, everywhere. I sometimes lay awake nights wondering where this is leading. Intellectually, I believe Washington can never be reformed and that the pattern of encroachment will only continue until something one day breaks, either because Washington goes broke or one of the State’s secedes, or what, I don’t know. Emotionally, I say with Patrick Henry “let is come.” Yet, I find I am affraid and suffer a great turmoil of emotions. People are affraid. Not just angry, but affraid. Bad as George Bush was, he acted mostly externally. The new administration’s agressive domestic objectives are scaring people and are, indeed, “radicalizing” the population. Why don’t people in government wise up and just leave us alone? I fear where all this is leading.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:04 am
King George taxed windows. Think about it. Got low energy one’s?
June 29th, 2009 at 10:05 am
“The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”
–John Adams
June 29th, 2009 at 10:20 am
I readily agree with all the points made in HighlanderJuan’s comment, but, in my experience, the statement that “…the hyper critical left can’t argue with authority (and that’s their weakness)” does not ring true, though I wish it did.
It seems to me that the only authority the left recognizes is that based on self-referential and usually pious assumptions. And they rarely argue any issue within the traditional rules of debate. I cite, for example, the matter of global warming; if there has ever been a serious public debate based on good science, I have missed it.
When the left is challenged by argument their response is generally to attack the motives and character of the person who advances it, and if the argument is sound, they will try to score points only at the margins to destroy the case-in-chief.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:33 am
While I hate to quote FDR on virtually anything, his admonition that “we have nothing to fear but fear itself” applies very much to us in our current efforts. And I rather tend to think that Providence has smiled upon this generation of American patriots, for what reason He has favored us in this way I cannot say except that our cause is righteous, and righteousness exalts a nation while sin is a reproach to any people. We find ourselves in one of the greatest struggles for the restoration of freedom and legitimate, responsible government that has ever been engaged throughout the course of history. But we needn’t blaze any new trails. The timeless principles our founding generation established as the ruling principles of our society simply need to be re-established and reasserted by an awakening generation. That providence has ordered the chain of human events in such a way that our generation is called upon and compelled to wage this war, I rather find comfort in than dismay.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:36 am
“that the federal government assume command of our health care” Although the initial aspect of Rob’s article is informative, this leap was “from left field” The federal government has long been in command of our health care but poorly so. The government, by way of regularoty law, has allowed the healthcare system to run amock. By not preventing preditory actions by all participants the federal government has permitted the current crisis. The patchwork quilt that is the healthcare system today has never worked to the benefit of those that need it but to the benefit of the greedy.
Will proper regulation be painlessly installed? Hardly. The time for that was a very long time ago! Will some businesses expire? Suredly so! Those businesses that do not have the health of America as their driving force will expires and rightly so.
It is time that we all come together and work for the health of America, not its money.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:50 am
JD, maybe I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying, but it seems to me that you think government ought to be regulating healthcare. You just think it hasn’t regulated it properly thus far. Is that right? If so, what makes you think it will (or can) ever properly regulate healthcare?
June 29th, 2009 at 10:59 am
The time has come for a new Declaration of Independence because, as Prof. Natelson stated, the federal government is the new King George. I think his assessment is too kind. The federal government is becoming so oppressive that it will make King George look like a boy scout.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Terry, you are correct, the regulation that has occurred to date has been poor. I believe, however, you seem to be under the impression that once regulation is established that it never needs to be adjusted, that is a wrong supposition. What is needed is a system of regulation that permits that adjustment. You do raise a question that it proper, can the government ever properly regulate healthcare?
A free market approach has never worked in healthcare, witness the snakeoil saleman of old. Without regulation these types sold whatever, however deleterious to actual health, under the guise of a “miracle cure.” Thus the federal government, under such offices as the FDA, shut down such operations to the betterment of overall health.
What needs to be put in place is a system that adjusts over time to new treatments and ethical concerns. A system that is “set in concrete” will never work. This system must cover all aspects of healthcare from patient protection, i.e. aid in the prevention of malpractice, to the correction of such malpractice, to the universal availability of healthcare. Like it or not healthcare is a basic right of every person. If one person is allowed to not get the care they need, when they need it, we all pay through higher healthcare costs. There is indeed no such thing as a free lunch and those without healthcare today, the ones that are forced into the ER, causes all of us to pay more for our own.
Perventive healthcare, that which must be provided under any system, would bring the costs under control and reduce it all for everyone.
But it should be stated, as with every system that has man involved, no system is ever perfect so an oversight organization must be involved. This, sadly, seems to call for more government.
Can this be accomplished at the state level? Much of the problem of the healthcare system today is caused because there is not a higher level of government overseeing it.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Wynne Says: June 29th, 2009 at 10:20 am
You said:
“I readily agree with all the points made in HighlanderJuan’s comment, but, in my experience, the statement that “…the hyper critical left can’t argue with authority (and that’s their weakness)” does not ring true, though I wish it did.”
Your comments about how the left argues is accurate, because they don’t have any valid arguments, so they merely attack the opponent’s character and motives. That’s intended to bring the strong down to a more manageable or defeatable level and to distract the conversation away from the topic being discussed. It is very challenging to argue with an emotion driven leftist.
But the left is the group usually identified as statists - they want big government and lots of government control.
I don’t believe that statists trust the individual to make his own decisions because the statists themselves are incapable of making individual decisions - it’s all about group think and group decisions. So statists use another man’s gun (government rules & regulations) to force people they disagree with (individuals, conservatives, etc.) into compliance.
Individuals, however, don’t have a problem making their own decisions - it’s their way of life. If you look at the reasons why our military is so powerful in the field, it is my opinion they win battles because, inasmuch as they train as teams, they are allowed to make individual and decentralized battle decisions. Not all nation’s military are structured this way - some have to wait for central command to issue an order. We conquered the Germans in WW II because they kept waiting for Hitler’s orders. Same story with the Iraqis and Hussein.
It is my opinion that statists are immature members of society, and are not the ones who grow and defend the rest of society. Rather, they use up society and ultimately destroy it because they are not able to put anything back into society. They are immature - not ripe yet.
So, if we understand that we have a culture about half filled with children (speaking politically), and the children run the show, then we have problems similar to the ones we see now.
We have taken too much good care of our people, and we have allowed the weak to thrive. But it is too late to cry over spilled milk - the damage is done and the parents will now have to clean up the mess caused by the children.
It is for these reasons I have suggested many times that we need to raise the voting age for civilians in federal elections to age 35 (military = age 21), not allow voters to vote in federal elections unless they have paid taxes (only those who put into the system should get to determine how the money is spent).
But, as I indicated earlier, now is too late to implement these suggestions - we are already beset with the problems of having immature and unqualified voters in federal elections.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Like it or not healthcare is a basic right of every person.
Ummm, no; no it isn’t. Because you think so doesn’t make it so. Sorry.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Terry said: “no; no it isn’t. Because you think so doesn’t make it so” Likewise I can state otherwise. The point being is that man must take care of man otherwise you are left with a priviledged class and an unpriviledge class. Left to itself the unpriviledge will eventually revolt. It is therefore in your best interest to provide healthcare for all, thus it is a right to all.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:48 am
I think it is an American principle to WANT a society with both privileged and underprivileged classes. The day we destroy that will be a regrettable day.
I do not think that theft is the answer simply because it occurs by 40 million thieves acting together. Therefore, as to the comments of “we better provide everyone with healthcare, lest they revolt,” is, IMO, not a palatable argument. It suggests we might as well give away what we work to earn because the thieves might turn violent to get it.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Rev J D Spears Says: June 29th, 2009 at 11:36 am
You said:
“Terry said: “no; no it isn’t. Because you think so doesn’t make it so” Likewise I can state otherwise. The point being is that man must take care of man otherwise you are left with a priviledged class and an unpriviledge class. Left to itself the unpriviledge will eventually revolt. It is therefore in your best interest to provide healthcare for all, thus it is a right to all.”
I think I see the problem here. Terry thinks ‘rights’ come from God, and JD thinks ‘rights’ come from government.
The Founders believed in unalienable rights that came from God. So, if you are a traditional warrior, as opposed to a secular progressive or statist, you believe rights came from God, and that you, the individual, have to assert and defend your own rights in order to keep those rights.
JD, I agree with Terry. An individual has no rights to healthcare from any other person. The individual has the right to keep himself healthy, but if he screws up, or is unlucky, he has to pay the tab - no-one else is obligated to help him.
Is this tough love? Is this jungle law? Yup. But it isn’t forced government care.
Man can (and does, if left alone) care for his fellow man. But once you hold a gun to a man’s head and tell him he has to take care of another, the care will decrease in effectiveness. Immediately. the patient will die.
So, what do you want? Voluntary care from a caring person, or involuntary care from someone who just doesn’t give a sh-t?
Your call.
I know which one I would want.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Left to itself the unpriviledge will eventually revolt. It is therefore in your best interest to provide healthcare for all, thus it is a right to all.
Hey!, I thought I’d heard it all when a commenter at my blog insisted that I confirm Hussein Obama’s non-Indonesian citizenship by contacting, as a private U.S. citizen by phone, the Indonesian embassy in Washington. But no, I hadn’t heard it all by a long shot. No; it is supposedly my interest, THUS a right to all, that I provide heathcare to all.
What a ridiculously stupid, ignorant, illegitimate argument!
June 29th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Upon further thought, I suggest that the tide of the “great American giveaway,” is on its way to turning. The takers better stop demanding to take so much because there will become a tipping point where, not only do we refuse to give more, but we start taking back what we’ve been giving away in the first place. That would be a counter-revolt to your revolt.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:54 am
“I think it is an American principle to WANT a society with both privileged and underprivileged classes” Clearly an America that should not exist! No, America’s ideal is a classless realm, where no one is above another. It is human nature, sadly, that desires these classes, so that man can be lord over other men.
“I do not think that theft…” a bit harsh and perhaps unwarranted. Are all taxes theft, or only some taxes? Perhaps if that can be answered this discussion and advance.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
HighlanderJuan said: “The Founders believed in unalienable rights that came from God” actually they believed that the rights were given to the governed by those you govern, i.e. government, reference the Declaration of Independence.
“The individual has the right to keep himself healthy, but if he screws up, or is unlucky, he has to pay the tab - no-one else is obligated to help him.” Then you are clearly not aware of existing laws about having to provide care to the sick? Anyone that arrives in an ER must be provided care, irrespective of ability to pay. Who then pays for those that can not? Those that have healthcare insurance or have the ability to pay otherwise. So much for the “someone who just doesn’t give a sh-t”! Pay now or pay later, but pay we all do.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Don’t reference the DoI. You’re going to lose.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Jeff Matthews said: “The takers better stop demanding to take so much because there will become a tipping point where, not only do we refuse to give more, but we start taking back what we’ve been giving away in the first place.”
Granted! The issue is always in flux, a dynamic balance. Ultimately the issue boils down to: what is the best ecomonic way to provide that which must be provided? This is as applicable to fire protection as it is to healthcare.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Additional thoughts on “Taxes as theft”: Since healthcare will be provided, see previous comments, what is the cost to everyone? This cost will happen and someone, always those that can pay, will pay it. Is “theft” by the government worse than “theft” by the healthcare providers? The money will be taken nontheless. Is a properly regulated system, with the potential of providing helathcare at a reasonable cost, worse than a system in which the unfortunate is provided care at an increase to your healthcare costs, and usually higher than the regulated system?
June 29th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
One issue here that is being ignored here is that the States retained power/authority under the Constitution to decide questions involoving the role of government in issues like health care, welfare, etc. It is the federal government that has NO authority here. It is the intrusion of the federal government into the area of reserved States’ (people’s) rights that has bankrupted the country and has turned our once “dangerous servant” into a “fearful master.” So, while JD thinks everyone has a right to health care and Terry does not, the question is incorrectly stated. The question is “does the Federal govenment have legal authority to enter the health care question?” Here there can only be one answer: No, it does not.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Terry Morris Says: “Don’t reference the DoI. You’re going to lose.” Hardly but that is a diversion to the discussion at hand. A mark of someone that has lost?
June 29th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
JD, laws that require the LOCAL emergency room to care for sick and indigent are just that, local. We decide as States how best to answer the problem of indigent care. There is no legal authority for the U.S. Government to enter into this area. It belongs to the States and People, not the feds.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
JD - your arguments appear irrational to me.
I’d be really interested in knowing more about your educational background and your personal experiences that cause you to think the way you do before I offhandedly throw away your arguments.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
My friend, you’ve already lost the argument, you just don’t know it. If you think you’re going to convince people in this forum that they “owe” healthcare to the “less fortunate” among us because it is somehow in their interest, therefore a basic human right to provide it, you’re thoroughly deluded.
You’re an enemy to this movement. Begone child.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Patrick Henry Lives Says: “The question is “does the Federal govenment have legal authority to enter the health care question?” Here there can only be one answer: No, it does not.”
Look to the Preamble of the Constitution:”promote the general welfare” clearly a call for the federal government to oversee healthcare.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Terry, I am saddened that someone that wishes to see the proper functioning of the govenment, at all level, refuses to acknowledge truth. If I have already lost, then provide the proof, otherwise, you begone little one!
June 29th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
JD - in regards to the preamble, you’ve made a common statement. A very common mistake too.
The preamble is an introductory statement to the constitution and nothing more. It explains WHY the constitution was written, and the rest is how this is to be carried out.
The founders recognized that the best way to promote the general welfare would be to follow the constitution - which creates pretty strict limitations on the power of the federal government.
The Preamble does not give any powers, whatsoever, to the federal government. And, from my understanding it has almost certainly never been relied upon by any court as the decisive factor in deciding a case.
**See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) (”Although the preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments.”); see also United States v. Boyer, 85 F. 425, 430–31 (W.D. Mo. 1898)
June 29th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
HighlanderJuan Says:”JD - your arguments appear irrational to me.” as does yours to me. What does that statement accomplish?
“I’d be really interested in knowing more about your educational background and your personal experiences that cause you to think the way you do before I offhandedly throw away your arguments.”
Now this is an interesting request. What does your education background and personal experiences have to do with my opinion? Likewise, mine has little to do with yours. Further, I do not recall that this group reguires that anyone devulge this information to be part of the discussion. If so can you provide where it requires this and yours?
As far as “offhandedly throw away your arguments” that is your right but doing so, without addressing them, is a disservice to all invovled.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Patrick Henry Lives Says: “JD, laws that require the LOCAL emergency room to care for sick and indigent are just that, local. We decide as States how best to answer the problem of indigent care. There is no legal authority for the U.S. Government to enter into this area. It belongs to the States and People, not the feds.”
Nor is the feds providing the care. Insuring that everyone has some form of healthcare insurance is not the same as having “socialized medicine”. The medical care providers are NOT being employed by the federal government!
June 29th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Okay, look, because you think that I’m refusing to acknowledge truth doesn’t make it so. When in fact it is you that is refusing to acknowledge truth. The truth of the matter being this — the constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to involve itself in “healthcare” and any number of things at all. Let us look at it this way — why do you think ‘federal’ healthcare is a rather new innovation in our system of government?
You people with your modern-centric view of the world thoroughly disgust me.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Terry I say let the Rev. speak. It is good practice for the kinds of arguments to come. I disagree Rev. that Govt. funded health care is a right. As long as we are free there will always be different level classes due to different levels of income. Some will get degree’s and become specialist in their fields while others will not finish HS. The Govt. refusal to pass tort reform to reign in malpractice settlements is doing more to drive up health care than anything else. Some states have capped some payouts but Ms. is one who has not and now I don’t think there are a dozen doctors who still deliver babys because of this in the whole state.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Terry we can go around and around on who is, or is notm, acknowledging truth. That is a child’s game. So let’s drop that line, ok?
Federal healthcare has nearly aways existed, at least from the time the federal government began attempts at regulating medicines. Thus federal healthcare is not a “new” thing but, like many rights, a newly recognized thing.
As far as your “disgust” at my viewpoint, I’ll just consider the source.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
BK Campbell, tort reform is such a small portion of the whole that it is almost a laugh to consider. Holding the irresponsible to a small limit is a joke, those that are guilty of malpractice have no insentive to improve. The problem is again insurance, the greedy, i.e. insurance companies, gudge the responsible for the errors of the irresponsible. Again an example of “theft” from those that can to those that can not.
The system I spoke of earlier must manage the malpractice but tort caps are not generally effective.
America is, in the ideal, a classless society. There are, at least supposed to be, no one that can lord their position over another. they can not “order” the lower class person! Sadly you are correct there are those that exploit the real and thus establish a class system.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Well, I’m not trying to silence the good Reverend. Someone once said that the best way to expose a nutjob is to give him a microphone and let him say his piece. I agree with that method. However…
It is not just about levels of income; it is about levels of ability AND of personal ambition. People choose their own courses. If I choose to be a lowlife piece of garbage who constantly complains about my circumstances and this and that, why would I expect someone else to provide “healthcare” or anything else for me? Besides, if anyone can show me where the welfare state doesn’t encourage less productivity and less self-governance, i.e., more dependency, I’d damn sure like to see it.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I’m sorry I did not properly address your “I disagree Rev. that Govt. funded health care is a right” Actully I would rather not have federal funded healthcare. However, since the system we have today, and for the foreseeable future if things do not change, does not work.
what I stated is that “healthcare is a human right.” How that healthcare is provided is an issue.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Wow! It became fun around here quite quickly.
How about this way, Rev?
I am all for federal health care, so long as 3/4 of the states are. That’s what it takes to make it Constitutional. Sadly, it doesn’t take more.
You know, there is nothing wrong with letting the local governments take the reigns on this issue. I have a problem with central governments telling all the local governments how to do things, escpecially when the local citizens don’t want to.
Now, if you want, you could compare health care to civil rights and try to defeat my argument. But I don’t think equal protection of the laws goes that far.
So, suppose my city almost unanimously says we don’t want to have national health care. Why should we be forced to? If you live in my city and disagree, there is always another city where you can go. But once the feds jump in, there’s nowhere to escape it.
If you want both diversity and harmony, keep the feds out of it.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Terry, clearly you are no paying attention. Everyone WILL get healthcare. This is a fact, a “truth” if you will. The issue is: What is the cost of providing the healthcare that everyone is getting anyway? I contend that it is the federal government to provide the necessary regulation to insure that the costs are controlled. Can this devolve to the state to handle? Maybe.
The USA is a CLASSLESS SOCIETY. This too is a fact. We do not have a Lord Class, and a Commoner Class. And there is no “right” of a designated class to “order” or otherwise control of a “lesser” class.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
If it’s a child’s game, then why did you start it? But look, federal healthcare has NOT almost always existed. You think it has because of your modern-centric view of the world and of everything else. And even if it had, it doesn’t make it in any way “constitutional”. But again, you’re not going to convince anyone in this forum, so what is your point?
June 29th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
JD - I think you’re entitled to your opinion.
I, however, view a right as something that doesn’t require other people to participate.
My right to speak doesn’t require someone to give me a microphone. My right to think, to believe, etc - doesn’t call on anyone to fund me, or to provide me a service.
Healthcare - is not a right. Because it requires something from another person.
But, I realize that many people think such requirement is ok.
Here’s the question for you, sir. If I refuse to participate in and fund your health care program, would you throw me in jail?
Will you use violence to force people like me to go along with the program you want?
June 29th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Rev J D Spears Says: June 29th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I am underwhelmed with your circular arguments. I have not observed you acknowledge anyone’s comments as being legitimate, and believe you are here for polemical reasons only.
Have a nice day.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Oh, I don’t think the Rev. is here to start trouble. It is all about taking in some opposing views and seeing if your own opinion might change.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Be at peace and respectable on both sides of the discussion. No argument has ever been won by insults, only facts and proof.
Respectfully, I will disagree with you JD. The Federal Government has only 17 powers listed under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. In addition, the Tenth Amendment (readable at the top of this page) restricts the Federal Government very strictly to it’s enumerated power.
We did not have any Federal Healthcare involvement at all until the late 19th Century at the earliest. Even so, it is still illegal according to our Constitution, as are a mutitude of other Federal programs.
Even the laws requiring hositals to provide care regardless of ability to pay are illegal if said law is issued at the Federal level. The individual States can enact that particular legislation if they so desire, but the Federal Government is BANNED from it.
With respect JD, and not faulting your intent on the matter, please read through the Constitution and tell me where it provides any authority for anything regarding healthcare, energy, or education. It’s not there!
And finally, in seeing your “Rev” title, I feel I should remind of a very old saying. “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” Mandated Public Healthcare will help build that road.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Thank you, Jeff. I seek not trouble, although that tends to be what I find.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Darkwolfe Says: “where it provides any authority for anything regarding healthcare, energy, or education.” Do you contend that if it is not identified by name that it does not exist? What about the right to privacy? This has little connection to those you have enumerated, but is provided as a possible example of a right not specifically named.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
**rolls eyes**
June 29th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Sure, Rev. I would just suggest that what you want or what you think is good for everyone is not nessarily what everyone wants or thinks is good. That’s why federalism was designed the way it was.
If you absolutely MUST coerce others to go along with what you want, then better to coerce at the local level, where the effects are more localized. That way, you don’t run round trodding on the rights of other cohesive, local groups in distant places that tend uniformly to disagree with you.
If 80% of people in Houston want government health care, they don’t need to accomplish it nationally. They should do it for themselves. It could be that 80% of people in Biloxi do NOT want government health care. So, we should nationalize it. We should let each community handle it the way they want.
Why they do not do it this way is beyond me.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Rev JD Spears:
You err Biblically, morally, & Constitutionally.
The welfare state is based on coercion, theft, envy & the distribution of plunder to favored groups in exchange for their votes. That is evil. Don’t you know the Commandments: “Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet”? As Prof. Walter E. Williams says, “I’m pretty sure God didn’t mean stealing was all right as long as it was done by majority vote!”
Your conception of “rights” is a perversion. A “right” is NOT a claim for stuff or services that are produced by, or paid for, by others. To hold that those who produce exist to be plundered by government for the ostensible benefit of others is slavery. It is evil.
Ours is a Constitution of limited & enumerated powers. Read Art. I, §8, U.S. Constitution. Neither there or anywhere else in the Constitution is Congress given any authority to make laws about health care! READ THE LIST OF SUBJECTS ON WHICH CONGRESS IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE LAWS!!!!! What this means is that the federal government has NO AUTHORITY to interfere in health care or in any other subject which is not included in THE LIST!
The “general welfare clause” does NOT give Congress power to pass any law on any subject as long as a majority of them think it serves the “general Welfare”!
First: You need to learn what the word, “welfare”, meant when the Constitution was ratified: “Welfare” as used in the Preamble & in Art. 1, §8, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution, meant
“Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government”(Webster’s American Dictionary of the English language, 1828).
But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English language (1969), added a new meaning: “Public relief – on welfare. Dependent on public relief”. Do you see how our Constitution is perverted when 20th century meanings are substituted for original meanings?
Second, James Madison addressed this in The Federalist, No. 41 (last 4 Paras): Madison pointed out that the first paragraph of Art. I, §8 employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. So, yes, the powers of Congress really are restricted to those itemized in the Constitution (primarily Art. I §8).
OUR FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD that the “general Welfare”, i.e., the enjoyment of peace & prosperity, and the enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society & civil government, was possible only with a civil government which was strictly limited & restricted in what it was given power to do!
The “general welfare” had NOTHING to do with parasites seeking to live at other peoples’ expense!
Friend, you have got a lot of studying to do. I recommend this book for you to start learning of the God-given principles of Liberty:
The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World, W. Cleon Skousen
It’s written is a very simple & clear style. Non-lawyers should have no problem understanding it. Good luck. NOW! Get to work and start learning and thinking! Meanwhile, YOU may give every penny you have to other people to pay for THEIR medical care.PH
June 29th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Well, what the good reverend is saying is that I (and you) ought to be afraid of those that consider themselves less fortunate than me and you, because if we don’t, they will uprise against us. Thus, on the basis of this fear, we should provide everything that they demand, healthcare and etc…
Well, you see, good reverend, I don’t fear this element in any way, shape, form. Indeed, I have the more moral position, thus they are nothing to me. If they demand that I deprive my children of their inheritance, that is their demand which I have no obligation to pay any mind to. If they choose to demand it on a more physical level, then we can deal with that too….
June 29th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Amen! I don’t take kindly to threats either.
Perhaps Rev. Spears will explain the difference between the parasites who will rise against us if we don’t pay all their personal expenses, and the Mafia whose thugs who will kill or beat us up if we don’t pay protection money.
Is there a difference?PH
June 29th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Yes, precisely; what the reverend is engaging himself in is a thinly veiled threat. That is all.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Take Rev. seriously if you like but I believe he is just been having fun with you this afternoon. No person who is serious about our Constitution believes as he does. Either he is just having fun pushing buttons (ours) or there is something much more sinister at work. Perhaps we will read an article condemning this movement as violent and extremist after today after his investigation. Think about it.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
What are you suggesting, BK? There are people, believe it or not, who believe that government provided healthcare is a right on the one hand, and a duty on the other. That’s the way it is; people actually think this way.
So we read tomorrow in some leftist rag that the tenth amendment movement is a violent extremist movement. So what? You think people disposed to believe this way need some leftist rag to confirm what they already believe?
June 29th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
There is a money tree replacing the cherry tree in Washington. Obama found it in the first 100 days. Keep up the imforfation on the revelant issues affecting our Nation.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:17 am
I thought our President was a “constitutional scholar”. After stumbling across this site, I would charge that his directive is to make the constitution a document of convenience.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Thought you might like this OUR NEW KING GEORGE poster I made for a local Tea Party event.
http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs018.snc1/3010_72946284914_540304914_1673450_8208201_n.jpg
June 30th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Yeah, Richard, that’s what they say — that he’s a “constitutional scholar.” But we have no more way of verifying that than we have of verifying that he’s a natural born U.S. citizen, that his mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham, that his real father’s name is Barack Hussein Obama I, that he was born at such and such hospital, and on and on and on.
He is clearly, however, a student and follower of Marxism. And a deceiver of the first order.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:48 am
DWalla,
Hey!, that’s pretty good! Can you make one for ‘our new British Parliament’ as well?
June 30th, 2009 at 4:57 am
I am sure your right Terry Its just that I am not a very trusting soul that everything is as it appears. I could say that just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they’re are not out to get us but they are out to get us so that would be redundant. It worrys me when people say that Govt. sponsored health care is a right. If enough people actually feel this way then all is lost.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 am
DWalla,
Your “New King George” poster is very clever! PH
June 30th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Publiah, you are right on.
I would certainly like to hear how a Statist defines the term, from the Preamble, PROMOTE. As they have always insisted that Promoting the General Welfare meant taking from those who do and giving to those who do not. While it is true that it is not the Bill of Rights, it is often successfully referred to as validating their argument.
However, it is as plain as day for me to read it and see there is a CLEAR and POINTED DIFFERENCE in the governments role to Provide and their role to Promote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The heck with the idea they are to insure Tranquility - as we all know taxation leads to Unrest! There is no level of taxation necessary to fund the Constitutionally viewed government. Let’s be clear about this, there is extreme evidence that taxation, however small it begins, leads to Instability and Loss of Tranquility where ever it has been imposed.
All services are provided by People, not a fictitious entity called government. There is nothing that can only be provided by government - nothing except Tyranny when that government has the ability to Tax from those who Do and give to those who Do Not.
T
June 30th, 2009 at 6:31 am
Terry and Michael are exactly right,
If Health care is a right, then it means someone else must give up their right of choice to oblige. A god given right does not impose it’s self on another person. I have the right to either keep myself healthy by making choices. or to live an unhealthy lifestyle, either way should not impose on others.
this is such a no brainer that I believe the good reverend was just stirring the pot.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Well, I don’t think he came here with the purpose in mind of ’stirring the pot,’ at least not in the sense that I think you’re using the phrase. I base that opinion mainly on the relatively unassuming nature of his first post. And the rest of his posts are consistent with the somewhat vague ideas that he revealed in the first post, and in the latter of which he was quick to expound upon.
No; I tend to think he really believes that crap. Some people do. And to those people their point of view is a “no brainer.” Of course they can’t defend their position without wrenching the wording in the constitution out of context, which is a pretext. But that’s beside the point. The point is that there are real, live, dyed-in-the-wool, true-believing socialists out there, and a lot of ‘em. Look at the U.S. Congress.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:43 am
I think I understand the “liberal” mindset. It is radically opposed to the Judeo-Christian philosophy upon which Western Civilization was built.
1. They are at war with God’s Law - Natural Law (the same law by a different name, and with Reality itself.
OUR view of “rights” is that they are unalienable gifts from God (or as Ayn Rand says, “rights” are necessary for us to live as man), and they may be enjoyed at NO EXPENSE OR INCONVENIENCE TO ANY OTHER MAN: the rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, to work in our chosen trade or profession, travel, to live where we like, to earn, inherit and keep property, to defend ourselves, etc.
THEIR view of “rights” is an entitlement to other peoples’ money: rights to medical care, housing, food, education, etc. All this stuff is paid for by other people. This necessarily results in enslaving one segment of people (the productive) for the sake of another segment (the non-productive) and for the sake of the civil government which administers this evil system.
OUR view of “Liberty” is freedom from coercion from civil government or, during certain periods in our history, from church government.
THEIR view of “Liberty” is freedom from the moral laws! Thus, in Roe v. Wade (1973), 7 judges on the U.S. Supreme Court said a
“right of privacy…founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action…”
makes unconstitutional State laws making abortion a criminal offense!
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003),6 judges on the U.S. Supreme Court said a Texas Law criminalizing homosexual conduct was unconstitutional because it violated practitioners’
“…right to liberty under the Due Process Clause …of the Fourteenth Amendment…”
“Liberty” now means being free to kill babies & engage in homosexual conduct. Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, said:
…As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom…
So, Kennedy thinks that “liberty rights” are things which are “granted” from time to time by judges [not by God]; that the laws from which one is “liberated” are the moral laws; and that the standard of when something becomes a “liberty right” is whether 5 of them agree on it.
Our basic concerns are “Moral” - we really care about “Right” and “Wrong”! THEY DON’T!
2. Liberals do not think. They don’t know Logic. They are very shallow intellectually. Check around - all the brains are on our side. Our weakness has been that we have not been willing to acknowledge that we have no common ground with these people - they do NOT have “good intentions”; they do NOT play by the rules; they steal elections; they lie; they manipulate; they deceive; and they promise the moon to the rabble to get their votes; and THEY HATE OUR JUDEO-CHRISTIAN MORALITY & WORLDVIEW.
When you challenge them on an intellectual basis, they crumble.
Our Rev. JD Spears is unable to respond intelligently to the objections we raised to his views. He can not defend his position intellectually. So, he moves to threats. PH
June 30th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Publius - you make some great points, but I consider it a grave error to reduce this struggle for liberty to partisan attacks. This is not about “liberals” and “conservatives”
It’s about liberty vs statism.
There are those on the left that do what you’ve referred to - and want you and I to pay for all their nonsense - and, they’re willing to use violence to force us to go along.
But, on the right, we see plenty of the same…just for different programs. Where in the constitution does it say that the US military should be based all over the world? Where does it authorize the federal government to spend billions waging war on a naturally growing plant?
You are being forced to pay - both in price and liberty - for the pet projects of all politcal sides. Those on the side of decentralization are your friend, your ally - whether they’re left or right.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:47 am
I think that overall your assessment is correct, PH. But I disagree on a couple of points:
(1) Liberals are moral beings, and therefore they DO (because they must– it’s part of their nature as human beings) concern themselves with morality, and right and wrong. I’ve given the example before to prove this, but I’ll do it again here — the whole basis of their position on abortion, for instance, is that it is wrong, therefore immoral to deny ‘a woman’s right to choose.’ The same basic concept applies to their position on homosexuality, and so forth and so on, ad infinitum. They simply reject God’s morality, or, non-liberal morality, but as I said, they’re moral beings so they are incapable of not taking moral positions. It’s just that their ‘moral’ positions are liberal moral positions. So, the next time one them tells you that ‘we can’t (or shouldn’t) be “legislating morality,” simply ask them this: “If that is what you truly believe, then why do you do it, and/or advocate for it?” Now, regarding our ‘reverend’ friend’s view of government provided healthcare (etc.), he gave the goofy reasoning that if we don’t provide it for the ‘less fortunate’, then they will eventually revolt, therefore it is in our interest to provide it for them. But he’s still taking a “right and wrong,” “moral” position. And,
(2) All the brains are not on our side. There exist a lot of well educated, smart liberals. I think the main difference between us and them is that liberals tend to reason with their emotions more than conservatives do. Conservatives tend to be more rational than liberals (but that has nothing to do with intellect, or IQ or whatever) because we don’t let our emotions and our passions overrule our better sense.
But anyway, like I said, a pretty good assessment otherwise.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Well, what you’re talking about are ‘right-liberals’ Micheal. There’s a big big difference between a conservative and a right-liberal.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
To: Rev. J.D. Spears, esq. Your arguments are those of a person who voted democratic and for Obama. While you preach “equality” you title yourself “Reverend”. Ironic isn’t it?
To: Patrick Henry Lives. Your post dated June 29th, 2009 @ 9:37am, made me realize that there is a price to pay for freedom. I will loose my pension, my SS and most other worldly goods but my kids will live in a free country. That thought comforts me.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
I just finished “one second after” by William Forstchen. and now on the book “patriots” by James Wesley Rawles. reading posts from this web site coupled with the novels… it makes for some pretty lively day dreaming at work. both books were found in the links on this site… I like the thought of starting over, I like the thought of this whole thing hitting the crapper in such a way that the public wakes up from it’s coma and forced to become self sufficient again. I like that there are like minded people on this site that recognize this disaster, and not a bunch of sheep waiting for Obama to part the red sea.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Larry, you and me both.
It’s really just in my nature to begin with, but I’ve even turned more inwardly lately, which is to say to my family and local community, and let everyone else take care of themselves. I’ve also implemented certain changes in lifestyle which, for what little bit of good it does, deprives the federal government of its lifebread. More individuals ought to be doing that in my humble opinion. Our colonial forbears in Boston decided that they could live without tea which had an unlawful tax imposed on it. I’ve basically done the very same thing with certain items and conveniences that only a few years ago I was consuming like everyone else.
I tend to think, though, that the impending economic crisis is going to be our final undoing. In the meantime these tenth amendment resolutions, the little actions we take on a personal level, and so forth, these are very important steps to take.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Terry, some great perspective. I’ve given up the convenience of my national bank with tons of branches, to go with a local one that refused bailout money. Sometimes voting with our dollars is the best way to stand up for what we believe in.
You might be right about the economic crisis - but if it’s anyone’s final undoing, it just might be “theirs” - leaving a golden opportunity to start anew…..with an eye for liberty.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Terry, Michael I wish it were that simple. The truth I fear is even though the central banks/Federal Reserve are greedy, unethical,manuplative and I could go on but all to say they have a plan B and probably even a Plan C before they give up the monetary axe they have held for so long. I do envision the failure of the dollar but right on the heels of that I envision a new currency that will be controled by guess who. I do am living differently than I did in years past and bartering when I can and using actual silver as payment in some cases. I live in the country where home grown veggies are abundant and game especially deer is plentiful. I think many will be getting back to their “roots” before we see an economic recovery.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
I should have been more clear about the part the Federal Reserve plays in our Govt. They are the power (money) behind all elections. They support both parties both willing to do their bidding. They are the one’s who finance both sides of all conflicts as well. War is very profitable for them. They could care less about our domestic laws or our freedoms but the people they support have done this to our country. As long as they control the money then the kind of politicans will not change and I do not see that changeing in the near future. Ron Paul was the most qualified of all in this last election and the media wouldn’t give him the time of day. They spent the majority of their air time kissing Obama. You were there so I don’t have to explain the difference their ‘reporting” made.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
You might be right about the economic crisis - but if it’s anyone’s final undoing, it just might be “theirs” - leaving a golden opportunity to start anew…..with an eye for liberty.
Yeah, that’s kind of what I meant, I just didn’t state it very well. But then, when you think about what an economic collapse actually portends, it gets pretty ominous. There will be untold human suffering, violence let loose everywhere, etc. It’ll make the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans look like child’s play. In that sense, our good reverend friend above is certainly right about the under classes revolting. So I guess maybe I ought to start going to the movies again. And buying groceries at the supermarket.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” - Mayer Amschel Rothschild
This has been the attitude of the Federal Reserve since its beginning. I am convinced that JFK’s plan to do away with them is what got him killed. Andrew Jackson was almost assasinated 3 times for speaking out against the Central Bank. As long as they control our politicans we are in deep do do.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Article II requires that ambassadors and others appointed by the president be with the advice and consent of the senate. Obama has appoint 20 czars in 5.5 months, not one of which has been approved by the senate. We are witnessing the wholesale establishment of a potential (if not actual) dictatorship in the making. We need some articles on this site about the essentiality of the citizen militia. What the founders said. Right now, militia groups are painted as skin head white supremists in a compound somewhere in Idaho, but really the militia is nothing but an armed citizenry that knows how to use a gun at time of national emergency. The government, being the greatest threat to our rights and liberty, is naturally the one that also wants to characterize the militia negatively. I feel reviving the citizen militia in an open, mainstream kind of way would be wise and prudent, particularlly in view of our imperial presidency and dictatorship in the making.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
No one wishes to address the part the Fed. Reserve plays in all this? Fine.
Patrick Henry it could be done if there were community leaders and business people willing to step out front and be spokesmen otherwise the media would immediately crucify us and HLS would have us in a compound somewhere. Even with respected citizens behind it they would still be discredited someway. Look at what happens to any politican they want out of the way of either party. They all have “dirt” on one another and this is how many are kept in line I would think. It would have to be done so quietly until it was raised it would be impossible to do with todays technology. Probably everyone who post here are already on a “list”.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
I’m pretty certain I’m on someone’s watch list. I mean, if I ain’t, I damn sure ought to be, besides being a little bit disappointed given that these ‘lists’ do exist. Afterall, I’ve served in the military and am, by military standards, an “expert marxman,” I believe strongly in the second amendment, I disagree with NAFTA, I want the U.S. out of the U.N., I think abortion is morally repugnant, I don’t believe in the welfare state, I do believe in the God of the Bible, etc. In other words, I’m a complete and utter extremist nutjob if there ever was one. But I can’t really help that, now can I?
June 30th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
On the question of whether Barack Obama is a “constitutional scholar” — I think as an academic I can help:
Obama taught constitutional law for a number of years at one of the nation’s top law schools. He is generally credited with being a good teacher. However, he was not a regular professor, but a part-timer — the technical word is “adjunct.”
“Scholarship” as generally defined in academia requires far more than teaching. Among other responsibilities, it requires a massive amount of research, and publication of one’s findings, thereby subjecting them to the demanding scrutiny of others in the field. Adjuncts on the other hand generally have no scholarship responsibilities. And while a few adjuncts do opt to research and publish, Obama chose not to do so. So it would be incorrect to refer to him as a “constitutional scholar.” He was one of many local lawyers who teach part-time as a sideline, perhaps because he liked it or perhaps just to pick up some additional income.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Before I donated to this site and before I made my first post I was aware that if I wasn’t already on a list I would be. I am proud to be. My only wish is that I be questioned by congress in public and not some flunky with a board and a bathtub.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Terry,
Like you, I have turned a bit inward even more over the past few years, i got rid of my Tv because the news was stressing me out to the point of losing sleep.. Being self employed, I have implemented a personal policy that puts me,and my family, ahead of my civic duty, in the name of self preservation.. My house was purchased from a good friend, thus denying the banks a stake in my future. It’s sad to watch my neighbor being foreclosed on… the bank, trying to protect their assets offered her $2,000 in exchange for moving out without stripping the place down to the studs.. calling it the cash for keys program…
I see things and I hear things.. we wont wake up to anarchy.. we are slipping slowly into it.. and the slow decline allows time for a crackdown.. My sister is a Mormon.. she sent me a ton of info on food storage.. my sister is the farthest thing from an alarmist.. and she is alarmed, ratholing food and supplies because her church is telling her too.
I hate talking to colleagues, friends and customers about these things if they don’t bring it up first because, it makes me sound like a paranoid nut.. so I am a bit introverted on the subject.
Went to a gun show last weekend, my first.. everyone was talking.. it was more of a rendezvous then a gun show. I see ammo is coming back to the stores… prices are still pretty high ( $29.00 for 550 rnds of .22’s )
so, I read my books, I go to work, and I think to myself…could it really happen?
June 30th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Prof. Natelson,
Yes; I’m glad you straightened us all out on that. Someone like yourself or like Dr. Andrew Bostom would be properly referred to as a scholar.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
BK,
I don’t think we simpletons would be listed.. it would be the ones who have a large audience.. the Glen Becks, and others with a following who are not party aligned..All that “common sense” is dangerous because it makes people think. and people are like sand slipping through their fingers.. impossible to stop unless you stop it at the source.
I also think the ones who are Party aligned like the Rush Limbaugh’s, Michale Medveds and the like are not listed because they are so predictable..they can be counted on to support their team with their Mantra.. easy to find, harmless pundits..
June 30th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Larry you may be correct I don’t know. I do know that since the Freedom of Information Act we can get a copy of our FBI files but I’m pretty sure that does not apply to Home Land Security files. Their whole thing is to know all about you while you know nothing about them and they are allowed to gather their information without hindrence such as probable cause etc. If loving my country and the Constitution makes me an enemy then it is the least I can do. Our founders lost everything and many men and women have lost their lives which is everything. If they are afraid of words supporting our Constitution and liberties, I hope that tells them something.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
I am just glad that Michael started this site and the fight for the tenth amendment well before this past presidential election. If it had been started after Obama won I can imagine what the media would be saying. I had high hopes that perhaps Gov. Sanford of SC would run as an independant in 2012 but that looks out of the question. I hope Dr. Ron Paul is in good health and makes another run. There may be enough public support by then to give him the impetus he needs to get some media attention. I will certainly donate my few dollars to whomever represents us in my state as well as national elections.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
BK,
it is a chilling thought..that’s for sure.. but like you I would be willing to be labeled a seditious person, if it meant bringing our government back to it’s intended function
June 30th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Larry wrote:
I don’t think we simpletons would be listed.. it would be the ones who have a large audience.. the Glen Becks, and others with a following who are not party aligned…
Well, I wouldn’t count on it. I look at occurances like Ruby Ridge (and there are many other stories like it) and I have to wonder to myself, “why in God’s name would the federal government concern itself with someone as non-threatening as Randy Weaver and his family?” I mean, this guy is dumber’n I am, and that’s pretty dumb. But it was really Vicki they were after, after she insulted the federalis in a scathing letter she wrote to them. And they got their man … er, woman.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:34 am
BK Campbell Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Larry you may be correct I don’t know. I do know that since the Freedom of Information Act we can get a copy of our FBI files but I’m pretty sure that does not apply to Home Land Security files. Their whole thing is to know all about you while you know nothing about them and they are allowed to gather their information without hindrance such as probable cause etc.
=============
Good observation, BK. He who controls the data, controls the process. It’s about control of us by our government. It explains why the feds are insistent on controlling our education, and like mushrooms, if we get to learn too much, or we get to teach too well, we get cut off at the knees.
The last thing the government wants is for us to be smart and educated and to understand what they are doing, and guess what - that’s exactly what we need to be doing. I keep looking for the government whistle blowers to open doors of opportunity for us, but they seem absent today.
BTW, guys, I really like this site. I spent this morning reviewing all of the entries, and think most of the posted entries are just grand. I also reviewed PH’s site, and really enjoyed that site.
Have a good one.
Juan
July 1st, 2009 at 6:24 am
I dunno Terry,
I don’t fully know the story behind ruby ridge, I remember the incident, but I don’t know any facts..( perhaps my next book? ) but logic doesn’t coincide with silencing the masses by going after an individual, unknown, unheard of person with no following.
I think we will come to a fork in the road one day, and the public will have to choose sides. But it wont happen until people are made to feel uncomfortable with government’s response and as long as the random citizen is left alone, and the people with a following are targeted, the public is convinced that it’s the “crazies”…the way to beat this is to bring resistance to the mainstream, make it popular to resist intrusion.. I’ve always admired people in countries where massive protests have been held.. I wish Americans had that much passion for their country. Might be hard to do though, we have so many laws on the books the average person cant walk out their door and go through the day without breaking a law. The protest may be be lawful, but getting there without violating a traffic law will be almost next to impossible.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:16 am
What happened at Ruby Ridge, as I recall, is that the target had connections with some white supremist groups they wanted him to inform on. He refused. As I recall, they then were able to maneuver him to purchase a sawed-off shot gun that was too short to be legal. He missed a court appearance by mistake of the clerk. Camoflaged comandos then snuck up to his wilderness home. One young boy was going hunting, when the family dog got wind of the comando’s hiding in the woods and started barking. They fed’s shot the boy’s dog. The boy shot back (I think) and fled to the home. A stand off transpired. A federal sniper murdered the man’s wife while holding a the family baby. Shot her square in the head. The fed’s then charged the poor guy with murder of his own wife for having maliciously caused her death by a felony stand-off with the fed’s or something. He was acquitted by the jury. No charges were brought against the sniper. Waco was next. The militia movement exploded with growth in anticipation of futher federal crimes and murders. Then Timothy McVeigh blew up the fed building in Oklahoma City, and that put a temporary end to strong armed tactics by the fed’s. It also killed the militia movement, though I notice the latter is now reviving due to the perception of fast paced movement of the present administration to create a socialist dictatorship.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:19 am
Further criminal actions by the fed’s. Things are heating up!
Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 fe deral
tax form all guns that you have or own. It may require fingerpri nts
and a tax of $50 per gun.
This bill was introduced on Feb.. 24. This bill will become public
knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law. This is an amendment to
the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. Th is means that the Finance
Committee can pass this without the Senate v oting on it at all.
The full text of the proposed amendment is on the U.S.
Senate homepage, http://www.senate.gov/ You can
find the bill b y doing
a search by the bill number, SB-2099.
You know who to c all; I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of
this e-mail to e very gun owner you know to help STOP this bill!!
July 1st, 2009 at 8:57 am
Patrick,
I suspect the senate bill has been pulled if it existed. I could find no trace of it anywhere except to find it debunked on Internet searches.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:11 am
You’re right. I should have Snoped it. Received it as an email this morning.
However, back to Ruby Ridge. The fact the fed’s prosecuted the guy for murder of his own wife shows the criminal lengths they will go to to save face. They sneak up in the woods dressed as comandos, shoot the family dog, murder the guy’s wife, then charge him with her death! The whole thing was so outrageous that Jerry Spence the famous Wyoming attorney took the case and defended the guy for free. Then they burned to death something like 80-90 people at Waco. No charges against the fed’s in either case.
Welcome to America. Home of the free. Liberty and Justice for all.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:40 am
Ruby Ridge was discussed in Gerry Spence’s book “From Freedom to Slavery” and more fully in Alan Bock’s book “Ambush at Ruby Ridge.”
July 1st, 2009 at 9:48 am
These are the type things that are really scary. They are no-win situtations for the citizen. Law enforcement are not held accountable for their actions unless its caught on video and if you resist for any reason it is your fault. With the exception of Waco. America watched it unfold on video and the masses did nothing. I think most perople were in shock. I know I was. But it also shows a clear picture of what citizens are up against. I believe Randy Weavers son was killed first. A boy of 12 or 13. This also answers the question of what will citizens that work for these Organizations like the FBI, CIA etc. will do when they receive orders that are in direct conflict with the Constitution. These are all supposed to be well educated, intelligent people yet they behave like skin-head extremist in these cases. It leaves no doubt in my mind of what would happen if citizens attempted to form a militia. It is indeed scary.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:02 am
BK,
This is where I just hope there are enough Oath Keepers to stem the tide of violence perpetuated by the government.
Oath-keepers are found here: http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com/
July 1st, 2009 at 10:03 am
The “left” –“right” model of political analysis needs to be discarded because it distorts thinking. It has long been said that those on the “Left” are communists; those on the “Right” are NAZIS. Well! Where does that leave us “good folks”? Right there in the squishy middle. Thus, this model effectively eliminates from consideration the option of a limited civil government with enumerated powers & individual rights.
Communism & fascism are actually two variants of the same totalitarian, collectivist, statist system. Both use terror as a means of achieving their goals. The only differences are nominal. E.g., they both have scapegoat groups: “capitalists” or Jews. In communism, the “state” owns everything; in NAZI Germany, nominal ownership remained in private hands, but the government completely controlled businesses and other property. Yet because of this false model of political analysis, millions of Americans have been conditioned into thinking that communism and fascism are opposites. Is it any wonder we are a rudderless people who don’t have a clue?
The same goes for the “liberal” – “conservative” model. We all know what a modern day “liberal” is, but what is a “conservative”? That term has been applied to so many people (Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, John McCain, Pat Buchanan, Bob Dole, the Bushes, etc.) it no longer has any meaning.
The TRUE OPTIONS are statist totalitarianism on the one hand and limited civil government on the other hand. Our own Constitution, with its short list of enumerated powers delegated to the three branches of the federal government, is one of the greatest jewels in the history of political thought.
In Ethics, the options are (1) An objective moral code to which we conform our behavior (e.g., don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t covet, don’t commit adultery, don’t kidnap, don’t bear false witness, etc.); or (2) A subjective standard.
We all have standard(s) by which we decide how we are going to behave: It’s either an objective standard which is based on something outside of ourselves, such as God’s Law or Natural Law; or, it’s a subjective standard: “I feel like it – I don’t feel like it”; I want to – I don’t want to; I like it – I don’t like it.
If I am pregnant and don’t want the baby, I CHOOSE to kill it. If you have money in your wallet, and I want it, then I CHOOSE to kill you and take your money. If my parent is elderly and I want my inheritance now, then I CHOOSE to kill my parent. The standard of conduct is WHAT I CHOOSE TO DO?
Where did we get the idea that there is something “moral” in honoring peoples’ “choices” to deprive other people of their Rights? That is a perversion. Liberals are not “moral” people! They know no law but their own whims, likes & dislikes. They pretend to be “moral” and “compassionate”, but that is a sham designed to fool us.
Highlander Juan! THANK YOU SO MUCH! I work very hard on those papers. They are written for intelligent non lawyers as well as for other lawyers. I wrote them to be position papers so that anyone who studies them can intelligently defend the constitutional position and make an air tight case (I litigated for many years). I have many more in various stages of development. PH
July 1st, 2009 at 10:24 am
Actually, there is no federal law against the militia. Some states apparently have laws about para-military groups, but in most states the militia is perfectly legal. In fact, the National Guard is the “organized” militia. The “un-organized” militia is everything else and they are totally legal. It is just a “rod & gun” on sterioids, really. But if you are planning on overthrowing the government, well then obviously this is a criminal conspiracy. But the militia is still legal; the plot is not. Personally, I hate guns and don’t even own one. I can’t really relate to many of the militia type, but I fully believe in the need for a citizen’s militia these days. I do believe that as long as the militia is associated in the public mind with “anti-government” groups (a smear the government is always ready to use), they will remain on the fringe. That is why I have come to beleive that militia groups need to go mainstream by having nice floats in 4th of July parades, booths at state and county fairs, wear coats and ties, put on a respectable face, etc. There is no reason to hide if you are not disobeying the law.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:25 am
PH,
I’m in between your target readers - I’m a pro se litigant in years past, and have had one traffic ticket up to the Ninth Circuit (long time ago).
I enjoy your research and writing style, and hope you allow me to pass along to others. Other attorneys whose work I have recently come to appreciate include Leo Donofrio, Orly Taitz, and Edwin Vieira.
May success attend your efforts.
Juan
July 1st, 2009 at 10:32 am
Patrick,
Edwin Vieira has a couple of articles you may find interesting.
“HOMELAND SECURITY” — FOR WHAT AND FOR WHOM?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin.htm
VISIONS FROM A CRYSTAL BALL
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin195.htm
LEXINGTON GREEN, APRIL 19, 2009
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin194.htm
July 1st, 2009 at 10:58 am
The funny thing about militia groups is that they are “kind of” anti-government in the sense that they are pro-liberty and pro-constitution, but the government is anti-constitution and pro-self. So, it is easy for the government to smear militia groups and marginalize them. But I think they should not allow themselves to be marginalized this way. They need a public image clean-up. Guys who are into guns are not the shirt and tie crowd, and are often ex-soldiers and dress accordingly. But if you are going to “serve and protect” then you need to look and play the part, and not lend credence to government smear campaigns that militia groups are necessarily whacko. In reality, it is the mainstream media that is whacked out. They are comfortable with “big government” and totally unwilling to conceive of the idea that government’s incremental encroachment on our reserved state’s rights can only sooner or later reduce us to slavery. The new administration’s 20 czar’s in 5 months should scare anyone and everyone. Yet, not a peep from the liberal media. Anyway, I am actively encouraging militia groups to go public and be visible.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:07 am
Patrick,
You might also explore the Committees of Safety:
http://www.committeesofsafety.org/about-us/
July 1st, 2009 at 11:09 am
Larry,
If you don’t know the facts of the case, I’m definitely not going to offer my opinion on the facts beyond what I’ve already stated. There are books and You Tube video documentaries and everything else available on the subject of Ruby Ridge. Check it out and tell me what you think.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:33 am
Okay, my computer wasn’t registering any of the comments concerning Ruby Ridge when I wrote my last comment. But, now that this can of worms has been opened, let me make a few statements. First, PHL has a couple of facts wrong — (1) the son that shot back was 14 yrs. old and was shot and killed by the federal agent while retreating. In other words, he was shot in the back. (2) the firearms violation concerned a sawed-off shotgun that a federal agent instructed Weaver to cut off. In other words, Weaver didn’t just simply cut the barrel off at some random length that just happened to violate federal gun law at the time, he was told, by a federal agent infiltrator, what length to cut it. Now, ignorance of the law may not be an excuse, but that is just a set-up, pure and simple. And why? What threat did this lone individual, way off to himself in the mountains of Idaho, possibly pose to the all-powerful federal government?
Also, the sniper that killed Vicki was at Waco. Hmm.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I spent some time reading about Ruby Ridge. I have to say that there is quite a bit of controversy..
Terry,
Randy Weaver testified that the Agents shortened the barrel themselves, not that he shortened it at their request. But then, this is just splitting hairs.. the fact is, is that there seemed to be a lot of inept people, from the mix up by the court clerk with the court dates, to the judge refusing to quash the bench warrant. not to mention the lack of communication between weaver and his Attorney, also the rules of engagement with respect to the operation… it’s one big, giant mess… that said I would like to give my opinion…
First, you cannot associate with people who are clearly at odds with the law and expect to be overlooked. “Intent” aside, you are who you associate with, this is an obvious given, right or wrong, it is fact and there is no way around it.. Randy Weavers intent was to move out of the mainstream, but the minute he associated himself with the Aryans, he was now “good as one”. His neighbor whom he had the dispute with that wrote letters to the feds making his claims would have fallen on deaf ears had Randy Weaver simply avoided associating with the Aryans in the first place.
If we want to be taken seriously, we have to distance ourselves from groups that advocate illegal activity, namely the established groups that promote violence and hate. these groups scare the public and a scared public runs to the government for protection..Not only that, they serve no useful purpose other then to agitate and create a negative environment that we have to operate in.
Our focus should be on educating the public, and winning people over by sound logic, the history of our Country, and our desire to return our nation back to it’s rightful place. Randy weaver, while his intent was was good, simply allowed himself to be lulled into a situation he had no business being in. Innocent? to be sure, but even the Innocent has to have enough smarts to avoid becoming a victim.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Ha, ha.
Look: I have a large family by today’s standards. All of my children are homeschooled. All of my children have a gun and know how to properly and safefly operate it. Am I a nut by the fed’s standards? Of course I am. End of story.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I just read the articles posted above by Highlander Juan.
I am reposting them at the end of this article. Edwin Vierra holds four degrees from Harvard, including a a Phd and a JD. He has argued and won three important cases before the U.S. Supreme court. I believe he is a law professor in Alabama, but I may be mistaken about this. Here is his bio. http://www.vlrc.org/authors/105.html
He argues in the first article below that Homeland Security was never intended for Islamic extremists, but for normal Americans. He argues (back in 2005) that the “Establshment” has known that the bank crisis and economic crash were inevitible, and thus put DHS in place to keep order, even to the point of suspending the Constitution, etc. Basically, he argues that the militia is absolutely necessary to maintain a free state and that it alone will prevent us from being reduced to slaves when the roof falls in. He is a man of emmanent credentials and perpiscuitity (like that big word?). I have to believe him. The Patriot Act was first proposed by Clinton, but was rejected by a Republican congress. Bush put the same bill through after 9/11. The very fact that it was in the works under Clinton shows it really had little to do with Islamic terrorist. People, we are systematically being reduced to slavery by our own government. I think Vierra’s call to re-start the militia is spot on. I hope you will read the articles and act accordingly.
HOMELAND SECURITY” — FOR WHAT AND FOR WHOM?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin.htm
VISIONS FROM A CRYSTAL BALL
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin195.htm
LEXINGTON GREEN, APRIL 19, 2009
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin194.htm
July 1st, 2009 at 3:33 pm
All you have to know is America is around #38, #1 being the best health care in the world.
Cuba has less infant deaths than the USA does…. Read More
Between 90,000 and 100,000 people die A YEAR in AMERICA due to medical errors.
ALL OTHER CIVILIZED COUNTRIES have Universal Health care, and MOST give better health care then the USA
Americans pay more and get less than countries with Universal Health care
What more do Americans need to know to make them get their heads out of their butts.
Watch SICKO, like recommended in the third or fourth comment, those aren’t actors.
Also, ask ANYONE on Congress, “How’s your SOCIALIZED Health care?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Corey — Rev. in disguise?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Btw, Corey, something’s obviously wrong with your “cap lock” button on your keyboard. It keeps getting hung up on “race,” and “hate,” and “slavery”, and so forth. Umm, wait!, that’s a whole ‘nother discussion.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Corey,
Give me one example of a government program here at home that actually works, and I’ll sign on to the health care train. Also, give one example of another countries Health care that is superior to ours, and that works and I’ll sign on to that.
Cuba is also decades behind in living standards.
What is your source for the 90 to 100k of deaths?..
All other “civilised countries ration their health care.. meaning if your ailment might not be covered..could be you are too old.
Heads out of butts?? hardly.. how about weening off of the government teat? you ready to wear big boy pants yet? and be responsible for your own well being? or do you need Uncle sammy to take care of poor you?
July 1st, 2009 at 8:18 pm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1777069922535499977
Speech Reagan made in 1964. Get a beer and pull up a chair.
Great website and discussion here, glad I found it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:55 am
LARRY: The USA is number 37 or 38, number 1 being the best, when it comes to countries and their health care.
Medicade, Medicare, VA, SS, ALL work when the US gov doesnt steal from them.
TERRY MORRIS: When I speak, I am VERY ANIMATED (lol), so I tend to type the SAME WAY
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:16 am
Corey,
I found the source of your information stating the ranking of the US.http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
“The World Health Organization’s ranking of the world’s health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task”
This means it’s not as cut and dried as you would like to assume. Also, did you happen to see where France rated?.. have you ever studied the French economy or their tax structure?.. Are you willing to be taxed at 60%? ( and it’s going up ) because thats the tax rate in France.
Also, your statement that “Medicaid, Medicare, VA, SS, ALL work when the US gov doesn’t steal from them.” proves my point., how do you know they work? when government has always run them?
every one of those programs are a dismal failure, and you want to implement another one? where is the logic behind that little beauty?
Back to your source- did you notice where Canada ranks?, Canada is much closer to our way of life and Standard of living then any of the above Countries, study the Canadian Health care system, it’s a train wreck. People are dieing in Canada because of waiting lists, and the rationing of health care by government ( and they only have 38 million citizens! compared to our 300 million!)
I am not in favor of giving up my independence, or my right to choose, in favor of latching on to the federal government teat as my source of healthcare. Granted the health care is broken, but the answer isn’t just rolling over, I don’t think you understand how government implements programs, if you did you wouldn’t be so quick to jump on board. Paying the Federal health care isnt going to be based on some sort of honor system Corey, it will be paid like your federal income tax, screw up your health care tax, and you get the full weight of the IRS coming down on you. whether you can afford it or not, it will be paid.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:50 am
LARRY:
The “government” wouldnt be running the health care, they would be paying for it.
Keep in mind we are already paying for it…as Bush suggested…just walk into a emergency room.
And NO, it is NOT only illegal immigrants that don’t have insurance, the 47+ million are Americans.
If we were to have the BEST health care, we would use Socialized health care. Socialism is “We the People” NOT “We the Government”.
AS for fear of rationing health care, that already happens, watch SICKO, do your own research, you will find MANY people who are sick that are refused treatment even if they have treatment.
Now, “cap and trade”…no not THAT “cap and trade” but I wanted to make another point.
Look into Christopher Reeves health care situation. He was cut off after he reached a “cap” aka the amount the insurance company will cover if you get sick.
Robin Williams paid for the rest, until Reeves died.
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:52 am
ps…you are the enemy of the US government.
Always keep in mind, the US gov thinks of you as cannon fodder!
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:58 am
Corey, you have been indoctrinated into statism. You listen to liberal(statist) sources and you believe everything they say. But liberals (statists) don’t deal with Facts & Reality. They manipulate people like you by means of lies, propaganda, & psychological conditioning. With all due respect to you as a fellow human who is made in the image of God, your comments reveal a profound ignorance.
Are you going to let them get away with this? Why not discover within yourself some intellectual independence? Start checking out other sources of information. Listen to Rush Limbaugh. Go to the Heritage Foundation website and study. Read the lead articles and comments on this website. Get a pocket copy of the Declaration of independence and the U.S. Constitution. Read them! They are both short and easy to understand. Open your mind, read, think! Best wishes. If you have questions about what you learn, there is no lack of people who are willing to assist you.PH
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Well,the way I see it is that the club of States called america have gone through 4 stages: colony 1600s to 1776, independence 1776 to 1789, union 1789 to 1861, and despotism 1865 to present. I know we all like to read about the 9th and 10th amendments but the Constitution was nullified by the lincoln administration on April 15 1861.The only power that could have kept the federal govt.within it’s Constitutional bounds,the threat that States would withdraw from the union(thus beyond federal power) was eliminated by force in the War between the States.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Corey,
Government operates by method of coercion, Example: Roads.. the feds( meaning we the people ) pay for certain road projects and the states operate under the federal guidelines, if they refuse to follow the feds rules the money gets cut off so technically, you are correct, there wont be a federal health care facility, BUT the health care facilities will be running under the rules and regs of the fed. it makes no difference who is dealing the cards when the game is dictated by the federal government.
Now for some explanations…..
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,(MEANING WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS) insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense(COMMON DEFENSE MEANING THE FEDS FORM A MILITARY THOUGH THE STATES CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE NATION ), promote the general welfare,( PROMOTING GENERAL WELFARE DOES NOT MEAN HEALTH CARE, THE WORD PROMOTE, AND PROVIDE DO NOT MEAN THE SAME ) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The way the country is supposed to operate is like this: we 50 States are individually sovereign, we have the right to pass laws, and function independently from the Federal government and each other. each state should be unique in it’s own existence, and individual laws. The federal government is there to provide the protection ( militarily ) and to ensure that the states do not form monopolies over one another. That Each State respects the god given rights and liberties of the individual. The Federal Government was designed to operate on a limited basis, thus allowing the states to function, make laws, and operate as independents.
so realistically an American, would be primarily celebrating the date his State was admitted into the union, along with Independence day secondary. There was a time, long when a person identified himself with the State that he came from.A proud Tennessean or a proud Texan or whatever… But the emphasis has changed. what I feel this board is trying to do is revive what has been lost by government over stepping it’s boundaries. to educate, and explain to people that the way things are are not what was intended, and that what most people have is a distorted view of the way our country is supposed to be run.
Now, if you are a liberal, you could argue that times have changed and we need to change with them. But, the fact of the matter is, our system of government is by far, superior to anything on the planet. proof is the hordes of immigrants that make up our country. The objective should be protecting our Constitution from the abuse of social mindedness, things like federal health care, federal road money, federal guidelines.. these intrusions tread on we as individuals.. as sovereigns if you will. the way it’s supposed to work is if you don’t like a particular states laws on health care, you move to a state that has laws you can live with.. maybe you don’t like New York’s crappy gun bans.. so you have a choice to move to say, Montana or Utah where everyone can own..My point is, the country was designed to give us the freedom to choose. like a buffet, you live in a state that best reflects your lifestyle.. maybe you are super liberal… so you would move to massachusetts.. maybe you are a religious type.. so you would move down to the bible belt area…(The only place that doesn’t get the luxury of sovereignty is DC.)
So you see, when you support a federal healthcare program, you are supporting the loss of choice.. the freedom to pick and choose.
Now granted, the Republicans are just as crappy at protecting our rights as the dems.. so, you wont find many here that support the GOP either. Most people here are conservative and that doesnt mean Republican!, they want their right to choose back!.. they want to be able to pick and choose, who, when and if they even want health care. They want the freedom to live their lives without being boxed in by the Federal government..People need to be able to choose a State that has laws that best fit their lifstyle..the More federal intervention, the less choice you have.( a perfect example of federal intervention is grocery shopping in Canada. here, you have 15 different kinds of peanut butter.. in Canada.. you have 1, maybe two. Food in canada is highly regulated, you have no selection whatsoever! because government is protecting the few who make the peanut butter.. so much for competition and consumer choice eh?)The reason why federal social programs don’t work is because Government on a federal level is by and large inept, this is why the Constitution limited the role they are supposed to be playing. The founding fathers wanted states to have all the power because it is easier to control and to maintain an individuals rights….our system is super easy to understand.. and it makes sense,.. it only get complicated when people start screwing with it and trying to make it into something it isnt, thats why we are so screwed up now.
So, let me ask you this, if you are in favor of federal health care are you also in favor of the federal government dictating to you who, when, how much and if you get treatment ?.. or would you rather have the choice to make those decisions on your own?.. and saying “it’s better then what we have now” isn’t an acceptable excuse to support it. if states are allowed pass their own laws concerning prescription drugs, Pass laws that don’t interfere with federal insurance guidelines.. you would find that there is a much better way of fixing the health care industry
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:21 am
Publius/Huldah: Rush, Heritage Foundation…those wakco hypocrite, religious motivated, liars are about are honest as the devil, if there were one.
I have no CHOICE but to be a “Leftist” or “Liberal” for two main reasons: who I am; gay, atheist and what values and morals I hold as s caring human being:
“…if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”
That makes me a bad person in the Religious Right/Conservative/Republican’s eyes.
As for your statement: “With all due respect to you as a fellow human who is made in the image of God, your comments reveal a profound ignorance.”
Why is it Christian Fundamentalists and Conservatives like your-self have to be such a-holes? All your comments mean nothing once you throw your; “You don’t know the truth..because you dont know my god”.
Please dont bother to respond, I was willing to “debate” or have a friendly chat UNTIL I re read your post more clearly and saw that god-crap.
The world would be a better place if all you fundamentalists offed yourselves….oh I say that with “All Due Respect”
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:37 am
Corey wrote:
The world would be a better place if all you fundamentalists offed yourselves….
Yes, that is your leftist … how did you put it before? … “values and morals I hold as a caring human being.”
Corey, be honest with yourself; you’re not interested in having a lively debate. And you’re a hypocrite to boot. The only person you’re fooling is yourself. And what the hell is the point in that?
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:03 am
LARRY Says: On July 2nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
LARRY:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,(MEANING WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS) insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense(COMMON DEFENSE MEANING THE FEDS FORM A MILITARY THOUGH THE STATES CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE NATION ), promote the general welfare,( PROMOTING GENERAL WELFARE DOES NOT MEAN HEALTH CARE, THE WORD PROMOTE, AND PROVIDE DO NOT MEAN THE SAME ) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
MY RESPONSE:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,(I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID) insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense( “ “ ), promote the general welfare,(GENERAL WELFARE IS JUST THIS, HOW CAN WE BE “WE THE PEOPLE” IF WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE “WHOLE”) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
LARRY:
The way the country is supposed to operate is like this: we 50 States are individually sovereign
MY RESPONSE:
When was this, when the states didn’t threaten each other, when the states didn’t “sell out” to other countries, when the Feds didn’t, bully the states, or whenever anytime those things DIDN’T happen….those things ALWAYS happened.
Like you mentioned above: “Government operates by method of coercion, Example: Roads.. the feds( meaning we the people ) pay for certain road projects and the states operate under the federal guidelines, if they refuse to follow the feds rules the money gets cut off so technically, you are correct, there wont be a federal health care facility”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
LARRY:
My point is, the country was designed to give us the freedom to choose. like a buffet, you live in a state that best reflects your lifestyle.. maybe you are super liberal… so you would move to massachusetts.. maybe you are a religious type.. so you would move down to the bible belt area…(The only place that doesn’t get the luxury of sovereignty is DC.)
So you see, when you support a federal healthcare program, you are supporting the loss of choice.. the freedom to pick and choose.
MY RESPONSE:
Who can afford to pick up and move? Will the government relocate me? Pay for my housing while I look for a new job?
=-=-=-=-=
LARRY:
But, the fact of the matter is, our system of government is by far, superior to anything on the planet. proof is the hordes of immigrants that make up our country.
MY REPSONSE:
Huh…odd, last I looked, the USA has a history of Imperialism and then turned on those who wouldn’t play their little games anymore, when they wanted their people to stop being raped of their natural resources (farming, oil, labor etc)
For Example, here are just a few, off the top of my head, of countries/people that were once “friends” with the US government, but when asked to back off, the USgov put them on their terrorist or axis of evil list: Cuba, Iran, Mexico, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, (however, the Bush folks are still friendly with the Saudis and the rest of the Bin Laden family)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
LARRY:
People need to be able to choose a State that has laws that best fit their lifstyle..
MY REPSONSE:
Okay, I want to live in a state with no “white” people, no heterosexuals, not ugly people and no Christians….which state will allow a Constitutional Convention where I can make that happen, and if I cant get a CC to do all that, I would like to take all “rights” away from those people mentioned above, AND no hunting, no fishing, no churches, free school, free health care, farming, no polluting factoring or animal waste dumping spots…etc..
=-=-=-=-=
LARRY:
the More federal intervention, the less choice you have.( a perfect example of federal intervention is grocery shopping in Canada. here, you have 15 different kinds of peanut butter.. in Canada.. you have 1, maybe two.
MY RESPONSE:
I wonder why most of the civilized European companies that have Universal Health care and Education have faster internet connections? Oh yes, I know why, they have more options than we in the USA have, they are more regulated, like our FOUNDERS desired, where corporations didn’t run the world. In fact, from what I understand, the FOUNDERS made laws that allowed corporations only so much power, forcing them to dismantle after a certain amount of time, as to not get too powerful, or end up creating a two-caste situation; the corporate/royalty and the common folk/the buyers.
=-=-=-=-=
LARRY SAYS:
So, let me ask you this, if you are in favor of federal health care are you also in favor of the federal government dictating to you who, when, how much and if you get treatment ?.. or would you rather have the choice to make those decisions on your own?..
So you see, when you support a federal healthcare program, you are supporting the loss of choice.. the freedom to pick and choose.
MY REPSONSE:
Federal Health care DOES NOT dictate anything, the only thing that is done is the docs get paid. As for loss of choice, have you never been denied care in the USA by a docs boss, (HMO etc) says he/she cant/won’t pay for test/procedure?
Watch SICKO, those aren’t actors.
=-=-=-=-=
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:21 am
Terry I said it “with all due respect” like you did when you insulted me…but I understand, you have your god telling you you are right, and no matter what you do, you will always be right.
No one can talk, debate, converse, email, or chat with a bumbling fool that follows a mythical being that has caused more death and oppression than anyone could imagine.
So your loss.
Yes, as a Secular Humanist, I believe with my heart 100% that fundamentalists need to be off’d, just as much as all the christian fundies in the USA believe all Muslims should be off’d.
So please do not respond to me, I am below you and not worth the trouble…I am a…oh what is it your types call me…oh an abomination, worse than a terrorist, shouldn’t have the right to vote or live…huh…too bad religious folks to try and stop all the child molesters religion has protected over the years, you dont hear much about that in the news, the movement to expose all this from the Relgious Right, they are too busy trying to re write history and make everyone believe the USA is a christian nation…gee…what a way to make more people hate us…follow George Bush’s HOLY WAR, and get us all killed.
It was and is the Religious Right’s ideology that got us attacked on 9-11, keep that in mind…and yes, I believe you are my enemy, and enemy of the USA and should be tried for treason and taken away and taken care of like a Nazi sympathizer.
If by saying this gets me banned, so be it, just know what I have said:
It is people like you that caused 9-11;
It is people like you, woman get their genitals mutilated around the world;
It is people like you who demand that ALL tax payers pay for your religious institutions to teach lies and hatred;
it is people like you that is the reason more people will die of HIV in africa, and had died in the USA;
It is people like you who cause more single mothers to be created in the USA;
It is people like you who want to take those single mothers, and make them starve, never get a better education, and become just what you state you are against;
It is people like you, who with Reagan’s support, allow corporations to pay less in taxes than a person working at McDonalds all while destroying the environment and sending the money back to whatever country they
claim they are from because of some legal loop hole.
It is people like you that vote against woman getting paid the same as men while doing the same job.
It is people like you that make people like me fight for my rights to have you people disappear from the USA….or just move to Alaska, the Socialist State, or Texas where cops still beat-up gays, and Christians support the killing of innocent people.
Good bye
Proudly signed:
Corey Mondello
cpmondello (at) yahoo.com
http://www.CoreyMondello.com
7-3-09
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:30 am
Corey wrote:
Who can afford to pick up and move? Will the government relocate me? Pay for my housing while I look for a new job?
So your answer to the dilemma is that since you can’t afford to pick up and move, and the government presumably won’t support you while you look for a new job, then the federal government, for your sake (or the minority’s sake), ought to force on the majority of the people in your current state free health care and blah, blah, blah. All for your sake, Corey. Because that’s what you want, Corey. What is this, a joke?
I think you must have eye problems. Umm, I mean “I” problems.
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:56 am
Thomas Howard, Larry & Terry Morris:
WOW! You guys are great and you nailed it! Originally, “citizenship” was with the States - see, e.g., Art. III, §2, U.S. Constitution. It was the 14th Amendment, §1, which extended “citizenship” to “THE United States” (as a single sovereign entity) as opposed to what it was before the War of Southern Secession, “THESE United States” (a federation of sovereign states allied together for limited and defined purposes).
Corey: I’ll pray for you. Meanwhile, read Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead. Pay close attention to the character, Ellsworth Toohey. He is a hater who postures as an “humanitarian”. Rand demolishes the pretense of the “liberals” that they are caring, compassionate people. Rand shows that they are motivated by hatred. Review your own posts and perhaps you will see! PH
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:23 am
Yes, as a Secular Humanist, I believe with my heart 100% that fundamentalists need to be off’d, just as much as all the christian fundies in the USA believe all Muslims should be off’d.
Corey, if I said that I don’t think you and your kind ought to “offed,” would that make any difference in your opinion of me and my kind? No? Thought not.
It’s your life, man, wallow in it.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:35 am
I think while we are discussing legal matters associated with individual rights, lawful government, state’s rights, and the U.S. Constitution, we are making progress. It appears to me that when we get distracted by political banter, homosexuality, etc. we make no progress.
The issues of importance in America today legal issues.
In my humble opinion.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 am
So, my dear & highly esteemed Terry Morris (I am quite serious about applying these adjectives to you),
Do you want to re-think your statement that “liberals” are basically moral beings?
Truly, if I were trying this issue before a Jury, Corey would be my star witness! He proves my point. And he is not alone. Ellsworth Toohey shows that Corey is an actual Type. All that talk about being “caring” & “compassionate” is a sham designed to deceive us and themselves. PH
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:59 am
Hi, Highlander Juan - you of the most excellent judgment,
It is just that we are in the Fight of our Lives, the biggest fight we have faced for a very long time, and we need to understand our enemy. We have been deceiving ourselves for too long, comforting ourselves with the false belief that they have “good intentions”. They don’t. They HATE US. They HATE our Constitution. They HATE God. They steal elections and we tell ourselves that “we are confident” that the process is fair.
Principle No. 1 of Warfare is: Know your enemy.
Please make whatever use of my papers you like. And thank you again for the encouragement! PH
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:09 am
Publius, no I don’t.
What I pointed out above is simply this, liberals are moral beings because they are human beings created in the image and likeness of God. They cannot not, therefore, think in terms outside of a moral perspective. I don’t care how hard they try. It may be a goofed up moral perspective, which I acknowledged above, but it’s a moral perspective nonetheless. I also pointed out in the post that liberals tend to allow their passions to overrule their better judgment. I think we’ve seen a very good, albeit extreme, illustration of that in Corey’s posts. But our little friend Corey is not your average liberal. Corey is a radical leftist homosexual atheist. He’s in a whole ‘nother league. You’re not trying to suggest that Corey is on an equal plane with the average liberal heterosexual theist are you? You’d be laughed out of court if you did.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:53 am
Thank you, Terry Morris!
NOW I understand what you were saying about liberals being “moral”. I should have known you wouldn’t be fooled by their claims of being “caring” & “compassionate”.
I have used different terminology: they are made in the image of God - the image is distorted & perverted, but they are still made in the image of God, no matter how much they rebel against it.
Yes, Corey’s HATRED does seem more virulent than that of other “Liberals”.
But all “Liberals” are willing to impose their views & their policies on us by Force. So, when it comes to the desire to have power over us, to force us to do what THEY think we should do, I see no difference in principle between the extreme haters like Corey, and the “soft” “cuddly” liberals like ………….? I can’t think of a soft, cuddly liberal!
This is a great web site! It is such a joy to communicate with intelligent people. Congratulations on your success, Michael Boldin! PH
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 am
PH,
I agree with your comments, but to me the libs, statists, progressives, socialists, communists, et al on the left are like rebellious children. They hate their parents (traditions, conservatives, God, etc) because they haven’t assumed the role of adults yet. They exist only because we, the adults and parents, allow them to exist and because we continue to take care of them.
You mentioned The Fountainhead in an earlier post, and I would point you to Atlas Shrugged and the withdrawal of support by John Galt. To me that is the right idea - force the children to grow up. I’m not gifted like Ayn Rand, and I can’t give you 62 pages of discussion on the topic, but I think you get the idea anyway.
The left exists as long as we adults keep saying ‘OK, I give you credit for having a legitimate position on the subject.’ We need to start saying ‘NO!’
The left has never had a legitimate position, and after all of the damage they have wreaked on our nation and on our culture, they need to be slammed. Hard! We have let our ship of state drift off course for far too long and need to get our nation back on course.
So, to the left I would say: ‘you’re either with us or we leave you behind, without benefits and without support, because it is time for you to grow up and assume your role in society.’
To the other huge distraction in our lives today, the Islamo-fascists and terrorists, I would say, ‘Leave us the hell alone or we will kill you.’
I am becoming increasingly convinced that to preserve our nation from our inner corruption, that we Americans who believe in God, our nation, our laws, our culture, and ourselves, need to do a lawful purge of every statist in our governments - both federal and state. The statists all act outside the law, and can therefore be considered outlaws.
Those that can’t act lawfully deserve to be put in jail and all of their assets used to repay the damage they have caused the United States of America.
Every single person who is an elected representative or hired employee needs to re-certify their oath of allegiance to the United States Constitution and be civilly or criminally prosecuted if they ever violate their oaths of allegiance to America again.
It is my perception that only our military and some law enforcement employees are consciously adhering to the functioning of the Constitution at this time. There are not enough Oath Keepers. We need more.
So, as you can see, I’m mentally ready for the Revolution.
God Bless America and those who preserve and protect Her!
Screw the rest!
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:21 am
PH,
You said:
“It is just that we are in the Fight of our Lives, the biggest fight we have faced for a very long time, and we need to understand our enemy.”
=========
I understand our enemy - just as George Patton understood his enemy.
Nuff said.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:29 am
Corey you wrote:
MY REPSONSE:
Federal Health care DOES NOT dictate anything, the only thing that is done is the docs get paid. As for loss of choice, have you never been denied care in the USA by a docs boss, (HMO etc) says he/she cant/won’t pay for test/procedure?
Corey,
In the health care bill there is a provision to FINE citizens for refusing to purchase health care. The fine will be $1000.00 I just read it on the AP yesterday. your healthcare tax will be collected by the IRS much the same way your income tax is collected. they want to make it law, much like car insurance.
I will ignore you facetious replies to my previous post as you already have your mind made up and thus any more explaining or continuing to debate the issue is just wasting my time and yours.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Yes! I read Atlas Shrugged almost 50 years ago, and then re-read it last month. Ayn Rand has had a profound influence on me. I converted to Christianity from secular humanism just 15 years ago. [Maybe there is hope for Corey?!] When I re-read Atlas Shrugged, I was struck by the following: although she gives lip service to atheism, her world view - her conception of an Objective Reality and her view that Morality is built into the very Fabric of Reality, is the same as the Biblical Model. So I suspect she was a Theist and didn’t know it!
As Alexander Hamilton said, an unconstitutional law is not a “Law” - it is a mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such.
So, like Hamilton, I think the proper course of action for all of us is, just say, “NO, hell NO”! Why do we, as individuals, local governments, & States, think we have to comply with blatently unconstitutional “laws”? Hamilton & James Madison made it clear in The Federalist Papers that WE - NOT THE COURTS - are the ultimate enforcers of The Constitution. We do not have the right or the duty to surrender our independent judgments as to the meaning of The Constitution to the courts!
I did take an Oath to defend it from all enemies, domestic & foreign. I keep my Word.PH
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
PH,
Well said. As much as unconstitutional law is not law, so a usurper to the office of president really isn’t president, now, is he.
You should join the Oath Keepers. We need good people like you.
Juan
July 4th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Larry,
Yes, Corey is a lost cause. Anyone that wants the very people “offed” that would be the primary suppliers of his self-centered demands, and without which the entire scheme would collapse at inception (Corey, why do you think social security is mandatory for all? Take your time.) is worse than a half-wit. But I wonder what the government is going to do when it tries to collect this unlawful, unconstitutional tax from me and I refuse to pay it? Will it put me in prison? It doesn’t seem like a very smart thing to do since I still have a business that produces jobs and income, and a family yet to raise. But who ever accused ‘govt. men’ of being very smart? Anyway, I guess we’ll all find out soon enough.
July 12th, 2009 at 4:59 am
Here I am, a day late and a dollar short, but I feel the need to comment. Rob Natelson stated this at the end of his article,
“Whatever the motivations of those who seek to use the federal government against the rest of us, they too have launched an unbridled and unprincipled political war against their fellow citizens. From the perspective of history, in other words: They are the new King George.”
This gets to the heart of the matter, what has been and is being used against us is “democracy,” or mob rule. Once our Republic was wrestled away via Federal encroachment (or given away by “the people”) we became a democracy; this is our downfall and it only leads to worse forms of government.
Therefore, it is up to those of us who are “awake and informed” to wake up and inform others! It is an uphill battle, but you know the outcome, otherwise.
Oh yeah, an excellent article!